JUDGMENT : The complainant in S.T.C.No.248 of 2012 is the appellant herein. The appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: The complainant is a Civil Contractor. A contract was awarded to him on 28.07.2010, for construction of a 'Mandapam' on the premises of Navanideswaraswamy Thirukovil at Sikkal. The complainant was permitted to store his construction materials on the premises of the said temple. The accused/respondent was appointed as Executive Officer of the said temple during the year 2012. The contract was cancelled by the accused by an order 21.04.2012. On 24.05.2012, at about 10.00 a.m., when the complainant was in the process of removing his building materials from the temple by a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-41-D-4867, he was restrained by two members of the staff of the temple viz., Chellamuthu and Muruganandham at the behest of the accused. Immediately, the complainant contacted the accused over phone and met him at 2.00 p.m. at Anjuvattathamman Kovil, Kizhavelur. At that time, the accused shouted at him saying thus: xxxxxx 3. Thereafter, the complainant reached Sikkal temple and there, the complainant was threatened by the accused with injury to his person and damage to the lorry. Thus, the accused committed the offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 298 and 506(i) IPC. 4. In support of his case, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and he has examined four more witnesses as PW2 to PW5. He has marked 14 documents. The accused pleaded not guilty. He has not adduced any evidence on his behalf. 5. The trial Court, after considering the materials made available before it, acquitted the accused holding that the complainant had failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Challenging the order of acquittal, the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the evidence on the side of the prosecution. According to him, the trial Court ought to have taken into account the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 5 and convict the accused. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent advanced his arguments in support of the order of acquittal. 8. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. 9. According to him, the trial Court ought to have taken into account the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 5 and convict the accused. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent advanced his arguments in support of the order of acquittal. 8. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the appellant/complainant is a Contractor and a contract was awarded to him on 28.07.2010 to construct 'Mandapam on the premises of the Navanideswaraswamy Thirukovil, Sikkal. It is also not in dispute that after the accused joined as Executive Officer of the said temple, the contract was cancelled by him by an order dated 21.04.2012 (Ex.P1). According to the appellant/complainant, he was not allowed to remove his construction materials from the temple premises. He has also alleged that the accused shouted at him saying thus: xxxxx 10. In his (P.W.1) evidence, he has stated that on 24.05.2012 at Anjuvattathamman Koil, Keezhavelur, the words uttered by the accused wounded his (religious) feelings and when he asked his workmen to load the materials onto the lorry, he was restrained by two members of the staff of the temple. He has also admitted immediately after the alleged abused. He has not preferred any complaint before Keezhavelur Police Station. PWs 2 and 3, did not speak about the alleged occurrence that had taken place on 24.05.2012. They have spoken about an incident alleged to have happened on 04.01.2012. In the case at hand, we are concerned with the incident that had taken place on 24.05.2012. P.W.4 and 5 have stated that the accused threatened them and prevented them from removing materials from the premises of Navanideswaraswamy Thirukovil, Sikkal. They would also state that the accused uttered thus:' xxxxx The case of the complainant is that he was verbally abused and threatened by the accused in and near a public place. The complainant in his evidence has stated that he has taken photographs of the incident on the place of the occurrence and the building materials loaded onto the lorry. The photographs have been marked as Ex.P7. The Trial Court observed neither the complainant nor the accused was seen in the photographs. P.W.5 would state that there are shops and houses on the premises of the Temple. However, no one residing in the vicinity was examined as witness. 11. The photographs have been marked as Ex.P7. The Trial Court observed neither the complainant nor the accused was seen in the photographs. P.W.5 would state that there are shops and houses on the premises of the Temple. However, no one residing in the vicinity was examined as witness. 11. The trial Court has not accepted the evidence of PW4 since he was not subjected to cross examination. P.W.5 would state that he was studying M.B.A. on the date of the alleged incident. It is very difficult to believe that he accompanied P.W.4 to work as a load-man. In the absence of any independent witness, it is very difficult to record a finding of guilt against the accused. 12. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 24.05.2012. The complainant claims that he has lodged a complaint with the Kivalur Police Station under Ex.P2. However, the receipt issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kivalur, would show that the complaint was lodged only on 26.05.2012. Ex.P4-complaint has been filed to the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam on 02.07.2012. Ex.P8, the complainant made a request to the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Chennai-34, to grant sanction to prosecute the accused. Ex.P8 is a copy of the petition. The Commissioner has passed an order dated 26.04.2013, Ex.P10. The complaint was lodged by the complainant before the Court on 24.08.2012. Sanction was granted by the Commissioner. However, the Commissioner recommended for departmental action against the Executive Officers who have cancelled the contract without following the procedures. The delay in lodging the complaint affects the very fundamentals of the case. 13. It is an appeal against the order of acquittal. There are several weaknesses in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and the trial Court found it difficult to record a finding of the guilt. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is unable to hold that the charges were substantiated beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. The trial Court on the basis of materials has taken a reasonably possible view and the conclusion reached by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse. The order of acquittal passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.